Sunday, October 31, 2010

Thickness sensing of hMSCs on collagen gel directs stem cell fate.

Wen Shing Leong, Chor Yong Tay, Haiyang Yu, Ang Li, Shu Cheng Wu,Duong-Hong Duc, Chwee Teck Lim, Lay Poh Tan.


Introduction:
Recently, it was found that living cells could respond to substrate elasticity. Stem cells will differentiate into specific tissue only on the substrate with similar elasticity as the native tissues, which are relative soft. But if the substrate is too soft, the stem cells will become quiescent.

Cells could also sense the thickness of the substrate. Within the interaction depth, cells would sense higher effective substrate modulus than the intrinsic modulus because of the rigid support beneath the substrate.

Among all the biological polymers, collagen is the most abundant protein in vivo; therefore it could represent ECM the best. In this study, type I collagen is used as substrate; their thickness are varied to modulate hMSCs.

Materials and Methods:
Before the experiment, the bone marrow-derived hMSCs were expanded and maintained in MSCGM. Passages 4 to 8 hMSCs were used during the experiment. They were cultured in low glucose DMEM supplemented with 10% Gold FBS, 1% L-glutamine and 1% penicillin-streptomycin. hMSCs were seeded onto thin (130μm) collagen gel, thick (1440μm) collagen gel, and collagen molecules coated coverglass in 24-wellplate for 14 days, all with a density of 1500cells/cm2. For multipotency study, adipogenic and osteogenic differentiation were induced in adipogenic and osteogenic induction medium for 14 and 21 days respectively.

To get gene expression profile, After 2 and 14 days of culture, total RNA of hMSCs was isolated for each different groups of substrates. Quantitative real time RT-PCR was performed. For immunocytochemistry, after 7 and 14 days of culture, intracellular actin filaments of the cell were stained with rhodamine conjugated phalloidin; collagen molecules were stained with anti-type I collagen, and TRITC anti-mouse IgG. For BrdU incorporation assay, after 48 hours and 14 days, cells were incubated in medium containing BrdU overnight, then stained with BrdU staining kit and cell nucleus was stained with hematocylin.

Results:
After two days of culture, the spreading area was measure for each group. It was found that projected cell area was increased with decreasing gel thickness. In addition, the hMSCs on thin collagen gel showed neurite-like extension. (Figure 1)

Fig. 1. Morphological responses of hMSCs on collagen gel of different thickness and control group at D2. (A) Spreading area of hMSCs decreased with increasing collagen gel’s thickness. (B) Phase images of hMSCs cultured on collagen gel of different thickness and control. Scale bar = 50 μm.

After 7 and 14 days, the immune-labeled cellular actin filament was visualized. It was showed that on the control (collagen molecule coated coverglass) group, the microfilaments were well defined. Actin fiber bundles were thick and aligned in parallel with the cell major axis. On thin collagen gel, actin bundles were thinner. It had similar microfilaments but the integrity and connectivity were decreased. On thick collagen gel, the actin bundle size was the smallest and most disorganized. Thick collagen gel did support the formation of long and integrated actin bundles. (Figure 2)

Fig. 2. Cytoskeleton structure of hMSCs at 7th and 14th day of culturing on thick A, D (1440μm), thin B, E (130μm) collagen gel and C, F control group. Small white dotted square at lower left corner shows enlargement of the cytoskeleton structure at highlighted area. Scale bar = 25μm.

The BrdU incorporation assay showed at the timepoints studied, none of the cells on thick gel had S-phase. Cells on thin gel demonstrated higher proliferation rate than thick gel, and the control group appeared to have to highest proliferation rate. In addition to the absence of proliferation activity, using qPCR it was showed that on thick gel the cells had downregulation in mRNA expression level of all the gene studied. (Figure 3). Non proliferation rate and downregulation of mRNA suggest that the stem cells on thick collagen gel was quiescent.

Fig. 3. Normalized mRNA expression of (A) osteogenic and (B) neurogenic specific markers of hMSCs upon seeded onto collagen gel of different thickness for 2 and 14 days. Specific upregulation of neuronal markers was observed in thin collagen gel at D14, but none of the analyzed genes was expressed in thick collagen gel over the 14 days of culturing period.

Discussion and Conclusions:
Besides the intrinsic modulus, the substrate thickness also plays an important role. Due to lack of reactive force on soft substrate, cell would have smaller spreading area and less-developed actin fiber on the softer substrate. In this study, it was showed cell spreading area and cytoskeleton development decreased with increasing collagen gel thickness. Along with non proliferative activity, it was suggest thick gel suppress gene expression and therefore the stem cell would remain quiescent state on thick gel.

Commentary:
This study studied the mechanical properties on living cells by changing the thickness of the substrate instead of changing the elastic modulus of the substrates. This is better approach because it’s easier. If the collagen concentration was changed to alter the elastic modulus, then there would be two variables in the experiment: thickness and elasticity. Since there would be variation in measure the thickness for each well, so there is no way to get exactly the same value in thickness. Therefore there is no way to determine if the change was caused by thickness effect or elasticity effect. However, in this study the authors didn’t test what is the range of interaction depth of the hMSCs. If I will perform the same experiment, I will compare more values in thickness, and a wider range of the thickness. Therefore it could be determined beyond which value the cell will not fell the difference in thickness.


7 comments:

Richard C said...

That that the authors of the article perhaps could have drawn a deeper conclusion than the one presented in the article. Aside from simply stating that the use of thick gels was probably not a good idea for use of hMSCs, it seems there is little intention to find out why. Perhaps future project directions can observe the effects of constant thickness but varying gel stiffness as well as the effect on other stem cells whose native area is not as hard as bone and seeing if such results are reversed.

Danielle Beeve said...

I agree with Richard in regards to questioning the overall relevance of this study. Yes they determined that both thick and thin collagen gels were worse for cell spreading and actin extension than a collagen coated coverglass, but I feel that this is a comment on the hardness index of the substrate instead of a measure of substrate thickness. I do not feel that a coverglass is a good control in comparison to soft gel matrices. I feel that although substrate thickness is definitely an important parameter to look into in regards to cell differentiation, this paper did not provide the adequate controls or methods to get significant and useful results.

Fang(Zoey) Huang said...

@Richard:I agree with you that they should go deeper and find out the reason behind all the result, and to test on various cell line's behavior on different thickness to get the general relationship. Since different cell have different behavior, it might give some really interesting results.

@Danielle:I think the reason they didn't test on the stiffness is because thickness is easier to measure since the young's modulus need to be measured using AFM or some other technology. And since thickness is related to stiffness, so it's just easier to test on the thickenss, and I am sure tons of experiment have done for different stiffness. For the control, I think the reason they did that is to make sure the change is not due to the collagen, but it's actually due to the different thickness. But I agree with you that a cover glass is not a good control.

Joyce said...

I also agree with the others on the analysis of thickness studies for hMSCs. I have some questions in terms of the time points. So the method said that adipocytes and osteoblasts were cultured for 14 and 21 days. However, how when they performed the charaterization studies, they only used 2-day, 7-day, and 14-day time points? Also, since they only performed 2 different thicknesses, I'm not sure if it's sufficient to make any indications that increasing gel thickness decreases proliferation. It would definitely help support their statement if they have more thickness values to test. Lastly, since they mentioned that cells respond to both thickness and elasticity of the substrate, maybe they should measure the elasticity of these different thickness gels.

Riley Reese said...

I agree with you, Joyce, in that the researchers also need to explore the effects of elasticity. Although for actual lab experiments, it would be more tedious to adjust elasticity compared to thickness, this study could have easily performed these measurements using a simple tensile or shear test. With these results, the researchers could have made correlations between thickness and elasticity on stem cell growth Also, it is unclear from this study if the two different gel thicknesses have the same elasticity. Although they may have been processed together, slight variations in temperature can drastically alter the elasticity. Thus, elasticity values for gels of different thicknesses needs to be standardized to come to accurate conclusions.
Another thing to note is their reported area range for Figure 1. Although the "thick gel" is a whole order of magnitude larger than the "thin" gel, it seems to only slightly affect overall cell area. Thus, their standard deviations overlap significantly between the thick and thin cases reducing the validity of their conclusions. A greater number of experiments need to be performed and different thicknesses need to be accessed to bolster results as described in previous comments.

Fang(Zoey) Huang said...

@Joyce: in terms of the time point, I have the same question. the authors seems like to be very inconsistent. I guess they did all the time points but didn't show some of them. in terms of the number of thickness tested, I think 2 thickness number should be enough to provide a relative comparison, since what they want is not quantitative result. at last, I believe for all the sample, the elasticity is the same. it is the "effective stiffness" that is different, which means the gel has the same elasticity, but the stiffness sensed by the cell are different. therefore the elasticity test might just gave the same value for stiffness.

Fang(Zoey) Huang said...

@Riley, I believe they use the same elasticity for each gel (or they tend to use the same elasticity), but it was unclear about the temperature environment. I feel like the tensile test will just give the same elasticity, but I am not sure about it. If the tensile test could provide a different elasticity, I agree with you that they definitely should perform one. I also agree with you that more tests should be performed to give a better results because to me it seems like they didn't really test enough aspects.